Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 887 

(b) Applicants must certify and 

provide adequate proof that the 

expenses incurred to eligible fruit trees, 

bushes, or vines occurred during the 

applicable disaster period and that the 

loss or damage was a direct result of a 

2005 hurricane, as set forth in §

760.101. 

(c) The quantity and kind of fruit 

trees, bushes, or vines that died or were 

damaged as a result of the applicable 

disaster may be documented by; 

purchase records; bank or other loan 

documents; Federal Emergency 

Management Agency and National 

Guard records; IRS records; property tax 

records; private insurance documents; 

and similar documents. 

§ 760.504 Payment calculation. 

(a) TIP payments shall be calculated 

by multiplying the following national 

payment rate for the applicable tier by 

the number of eligible acres, excluding 

but not limited to such things as 

drainage ditches and canals, in a stand 

of fruit trees, bushes, or vines by the 

producer’s share in such crop: (1) Tier I—$750; 

(2) Tier II—$300; 

(3) Tier III—$200; and 

(4) Tier IV—$90. 

(b) If the actual expenses incurred for 

damage are greater than the value 

associated with the tier based on the 

location of the stand, the applicant may 

submit documentation to FSA to request 

the stand be placed in the next lowernumbered tier which represents a 

greater level of loss and a higher 

payment rate. Regardless of the 

expenses incurred the stand can only be 

placed in the next lower-numbered tier. 

Subpart G—Aquaculture Program 

§ 760.601 Funds availability. 

FSA will provide block grants to the 

states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas 

where aquaculture was adversely 

affected by 2005 hurricanes as set forth 

in § 760.101. Producers in eligible 

counties in those states who raise 

aquaculture species in a controlled 

environment as part of a farming 

operation and who have not received 

assistance under other disaster programs 

for the same aquaculture losses are 

eligible to receive these funds. Funds 

provided by a State to a farming 

operation under such a grant shall not 

exceed $80,000. 

Subpart H—2006 Livestock Assistance 

Grant Program 

§ 760.701 Funds availability. 

FSA will administer a limited 

program to provide assistance to 

livestock producers where forage was 

adversely affected by drought in 

counties reaching D3 or D4 Drought on 

the U.S. Drought Monitor, during March 

7 to August 31, 2006, in the States of: 

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 

Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North 

Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, 

Wisconsin and Wyoming. Under the 

Livestock Assistance Grant Program, 

FSA will provide grants to the State 

governments of these States to assist 

livestock producers who suffered forage 

losses as part of a farming operation in 

eligible counties. The amount of each 

grant will be based on the number of 

adult beef cattle and sheep from each 

eligible county uniformly prorated to 

insure that available funding is not 

exceeded. Producers in eligible counties 

in those States who suffered forage 

losses as part of a farming operation are 

eligible for assistance under these 

grants. Among other conditions of these 

grants, assistance provided by a State 

under such a grant to an applicant shall 

not exceed $10,000, except for general 

partnerships and joint ventures in 

which case assistance shall not exceed 

$10,000 times the number of members 

that constitute the general partnership 

or joint venture. 

Signed in Washington, DC January 4, 2007. 

Teresa C. Lasseter, 

Administrator, Farm Service Agency. 

[FR Doc. E7–88 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 104 

[Notice 2006—23] 

Statement of Policy: ‘‘Purpose of 

Disbursement’’ Entries for Filings With 

the Commission 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Statement of Policy. 

SUMMARY: Political committees and 

other persons required to file campaign 

finance reports with the FEC must 

itemize certain disbursements and, for 

each itemized disbursement, must 

provide information including a brief 

description of the purpose of the 

disbursement. The ‘‘purpose of 

disbursement’’ entry, when considered 

along with the identity of the 

disbursement recipient, must be 

sufficiently specific to make the purpose 

of the disbursement clear. The guidance 

below includes a non-exhaustive list of 

‘‘purpose of disbursement’’ entries that 

are generally acceptable, and a nonexhaustive list of terms that are 

generally not acceptable. 

DATES: Effective as of January 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard T. Ewell, Attorney, 999 E Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–

1650 or (800) 424–9530, or Debbie 

Chacona, Branch Chief, Party/Non-Party 

Branch, Reports Analysis Division, 999 

E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463, 

(202) 694–1130 or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Political 

committees and other persons required 

to file campaign finance reports with the 

FEC must itemize certain disbursements 

and, for each itemized disbursement, 

must provide the full name and address 

of the recipient, the date the 

disbursement was made, and a brief 

statement or description of why the 

disbursement was made. See 2 U.S.C. 

434(b); 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3) and (4), 

104.10(b)(4), 104.17(b)(3) and 

300.36(b)(2)(iii). The ‘‘purpose of 

disbursement’’ entry, when considered 

along with the identity of the 

disbursement recipient, must be 

sufficiently specific to make the purpose 

of the disbursement clear. 11 CFR 

104.3(b)(3)(i)(B) and (4)(i)(A). The 

Commission’s regulation requiring a 

description of the purpose of each 

itemized disbursement includes 

examples of descriptions that are 

acceptable (e.g., ‘‘dinner expenses,’’

‘‘salary,’’ ‘‘travel expenses’’) and 

examples that are unacceptable (e.g., 

‘‘advance,’’ ‘‘miscellaneous’’). Neither 

list is exhaustive. 

The Commission solicited comments 

on a draft of this policy statement on 

November 2, 2006. Two comments were 

received. After reviewing the comments 

received, the Commission has decided 

to publish the policy statement with one 

change. As suggested by a commenter, 

the Commission has added ‘‘ConsultingPolitical’’ to the examples of generally 

insufficient descriptions. In light of this 

change, the Commission has also added 

examples of descriptions that would be 

generally sufficient, such as 

‘‘Consulting-Media,’’ ‘‘ConsultingFundraising,’’ ‘‘Consulting-Polling,’’

‘‘Consulting-Legal’’ and ‘‘ConsultingGet-Out-The-Vote.’’

The Commission recognizes that the 

‘‘purpose of disbursement’’ entries, 

when linked to information provided 

about the recipient of the payment, may 

provide sufficient disclosure. For 

example, a disbursement to an office 

supply vendor for the stated purpose of 

‘‘Supplies’’ provides adequate and 

acceptable disclosure, while a 

disbursement to a committee staff 

member for the same purpose of 

‘‘Supplies’’ would likely trigger a 

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with RULES

888 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

request for a more complete description 

of the purpose of the disbursement. In 

the former case, it is obvious to the 

reader what type of supplies were 

purchased, while in the latter case, it is 

not. 

As a rule of thumb, filers should 

consider the following question: ‘‘Could 

a person not associated with the 

committee easily discern why the 

disbursement was made when reading 

the name of the recipient and the 

purpose?’’ For example, a person not 

associated with the committee could not 

easily discern the purpose of a 

disbursement made to a vendor for 

‘‘Consulting’’ (unless the vendor’s name 

makes the purpose clear, e.g., Smith 

Fundraising Consulting, Inc.). As 

discussed above, however, if the 

committee were to provide additional 

detail with respect to the type of 

consulting the vendor provided (e.g., 

‘‘Fundraising Consulting’’), an 

unassociated person would have no 

difficultly discerning the purpose of the 

disbursement. 

All information on campaign finance 

reports submitted to the FEC, including 

the entries for ‘‘purpose of 

disbursement,’’ are reviewed by analysts 

in the Reports Analysis Division (RAD). 

Some campaign finance reports, 

particularly those filed by presidential 

campaign committees accepting public 

funding, are also reviewed by auditors 

in the Audit Division. In practice, the 

RAD analysts and the auditors often 

encounter ‘‘purpose of disbursement’’

entries that are not listed in the 

examples contained in 11 CFR 

104.3(b)(3) and (4), and receive 

questions from filers regarding 

acceptable descriptions. Therefore, in 

order to provide further guidance to 

filers and to encourage consistency 

between filers, the Commission is 

publishing lists of additional generally 

acceptable and generally unacceptable 

descriptions. 

The Commission does not intend to 

request that a committee provide 

additional information about a purpose 

of disbursement entry if the committee 

uses those descriptions listed below as 

providing sufficient detail. However, if 

a committee uses a description that is 

listed as lacking sufficient detail, a RAD 

analyst may review the report more 

closely but the Commission would not 

automatically take any particular action. 

In most instances, the Commission will 

merely contact the reporting committee 

and the committee may then amend its 

report. In the rare circumstances in 

which the Commission deems it 

necessary to pursue the matter further, 

the Commission will conduct a separate 

review of the sufficiency of the 

description of purpose to determine 

whether it meets the requirements of 11 

CFR 104.3(b). 

Any future revisions to these lists will 

be posted on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fec.gov/law/policy.shtml. 

Committees with questions can contact 

either their assigned RAD analyst 

(phone: (800) 424–9530 (press 5)) or the 

FEC Information Division (phone: (800) 

424–9530 (press 6); e-mail: 

info@fec.gov). 

Descriptions of purpose that provide 

sufficient detail: 

• ‘‘Salary’’ for a disbursement to a 

staff member. 

• ‘‘Media’’ for a disbursement to a 

television or radio communication 

company. 

• ‘‘Polling’’ for a disbursement to a 

research/communications company. 

• ‘‘Travel,’’ ‘‘Travel Expenses,’’ or 

‘‘Travel Expense Reimbursement’’ for a 

disbursement to a staff member. 

• ‘‘Printing’’ for a disbursement to a 

printing company. 

• ‘‘Phone Banks’’ for a disbursement 

to a vendor providing phone bank 

services. 

• ‘‘Dinner Expense’’ for a 

disbursement to a restaurant. 

• ‘‘Catering Cost’’ for a disbursement 

to a hotel or restaurant where a 

fundraiser was held. 

• ‘‘Party Fees’’ or ‘‘Party Annual 

Dues’’ for a disbursement to a National 

Party Committee for their annual dues. 

• ‘‘Exit Polling,’’ ‘‘Door-to-Door GetOut-the-Vote,’’ ‘‘Get-Out-the-Vote Phone 

Calls,’’ or ‘‘Driving Voters to the Polls’’

to individuals or vendors contracted for 

get-out-the-vote or voter registration 

activity. 

• ‘‘Supplies’’ for a disbursement to an 

office supply vendor. 

• ‘‘Consultant-Media,’’ ‘‘ConsultantFundraising,’’ ‘‘Consultant-Get-Out-TheVote,’’ ‘‘Consultant-Legal,’’ or 

‘‘Consultant-Polling’’ for a disbursement 

to a consultant or consulting company. 

Descriptions of purposes that 

generally lack sufficient detail: 

Administrative Expenses 

Admin. 

Advance 

Bonus 

Bounty 

Campaign Expense 

Campaign Material 

Charges 

Collateral 

Collateral Materials 

Commission 

Compensation (other than committee 

staff) 

Consultant 

Consultant-Political 

Consulting 

Consulting Non-FEA 

Consulting Service 

Contract 

Contract Labor 

Contractual Services 

Convention Expenses 

Convention Services 

Costs 

Delegate 

Delegate Expenses 

Design 

Discount Fees 

Election Day Expense 

Entertainment 

Event 

Event Expense 

Event Reimbursement 

Event Supplies (if to an individual) 

Expenses 

Expense Reimbursement 

Fees 

Fundraising (if to an individual) 

Fundraising Event 

Fundraising Expense (if to an 

individual) 

Fundraising Fees (if to an individual) 

Fundraising Supplies (if to an 

individual) 

General Advice 

General Consulting 

Generic Campaign Activity 

Generic Consulting 

Get-Out-The-Vote or GOTV 

GOTV Expenses 

GOTV Labor 

Invoice 

Labor 

Literature 

Meeting (if to an individual) 

Meeting Expenses (if to an individual) 

Meeting Supplies (if to an individual) 

Miscellaneous or Misc. 

Miscellaneous Expense 

Office Expense (if to an individual) 

Office Services 

Outside Services 

Operating Expenses 

Other Expenses 

Production 

Professional Fees 

Professional Fees—Consulting 

Professional Services 

Promotional Material 

Publication 

Push Card 

Reimbursement 

Rendered Service 

Services 

Services Rendered 

State Convention 

Supplies (if to an individual) 

Voter Bounty 

Voter Contact 

Voter Drive 

Voter Identification or Voter ID 

Voter Registration 

Worker 

This Federal Register notice 

represents a general statement of policy 

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 889 

announcing the general course of action 

that the Commission intends to follow. 

This policy statement does not 

constitute an agency regulation 

requiring notice of proposed 

rulemaking, opportunities for public 

participation, prior publication, and 

delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 

553 of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(‘‘APA’’). As such, it does not bind the 

Commission or any member of the 

general public. The provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, which apply 

when notice and comment are required 

by the APA or another statute, are not 

applicable. 

Dated: December 27, 2006. 

Robert D. Lenhard, 

Vice Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–65 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22696; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–SW–22–AD; Amendment 39–

14877; AD 2007–01–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bell 

Helicopter Textron Canada Model 

206A, B, L, L–1, L–3, and L–4 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes 

an existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

for the specified Bell Helicopter Textron 

Canada (BHTC) model helicopters. The 

existing AD currently requires certain 

inspections and checks of the tail rotor 

blade (blade) for a deformation, a crack, 

and a bent or deformed tail rotor weight 

(weight). Also, that AD requires, before 

further flight, replacing each blade with 

an airworthy blade if a deformation, a 

crack, or a bent or deformed weight is 

found. This action contains the same 

actions as the existing AD and also adds 

to the applicability certain serialnumbered blades inadvertently omitted 

from the current AD. This action also 

requires replacing each affected blade, 

which is a terminating action. This 

amendment is prompted by three 

reports of skin cracks originating near 

the blade trailing edge balance weight. 

The actions specified by this AD are 

intended to prevent blade failure and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: Effective February 13, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may get the service 

information identified in this AD from 

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, 12,800 

Rue de l’Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec 

J7J1R4, telephone (450) 437–2862 or 

(800) 363–8023, fax (450) 433–0272. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the docket that 

contains this AD, any comments, and 

other information on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov, or at the Docket 

Management System (DMS), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Room PL–401, on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations 

and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 

76193–0111, telephone (817) 222–5122, 

fax (817) 222–5961. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 by 

superseding AD 2004–24–08, 

Amendment 39–13884 (69 FR 69810, 

December 1, 2004), for the specified 

BHTC model helicopters was published 

in the Federal Register on October 17, 

2005 (70 FR 60246). This action 

contains the same actions as the existing 

AD. Also, when we issued AD 2004–24–

08, we intentionally did not include the 

long-term requirement (no later than 

April 27, 2007) for removing and 

sending the affected blades to Rotor 

Blades, Inc. as specified by the 

manufacturer. We are including a longterm requirement in this AD that the 

affected blades be replaced on or before 

April 27, 2007, as terminating action. 

Additionally, in AD 2004–24–08, we 

inadvertently omitted blade serial 

numbers 10102 through 10114 from the 

applicability. We are correcting that 

oversight with this action. 

Since issuing AD 2004–24–08, BHTC 

has issued Alert Service Bulletin 206–

04–100 for Bell Model 206A and B 

helicopters, and 206L–04–127 for Bell 

Model 206L series helicopters, both 

Revision C, both dated March 5, 2005 

(ASB). These ASBs add two warnings in 

the compliance section specifying 

returning the blade for balancing to 

Rotor Blades, Inc., and introduce new 

skin damage limits that supersede the 

previous damage limits. The ASB also 

gives a new address for Rotor Blades 

Inc. 

Transport Canada, the airworthiness 

authority for Canada, notified the FAA 

that an unsafe condition may exist on 

these helicopter models. Transport 

Canada advises of three reports of skin 

cracks originating near the blade trailing 

edge balance weight. Two of the 

occurrences caused a loss of the weight 

and a strip of material along the trailing 

edge leading to an imbalance, which 

caused the fracture of three of the four 

tail rotor gearbox attachments. One of 

these occurrences resulted in the 

gearbox shifting that caused failure of 

the drive shaft and resulting loss of yaw 

control. Transport Canada issued AD 

No. CF–2004–05R1, dated June 28, 

2004, to ensure the continued 

airworthiness of these helicopters in 

Canada. 

These helicopter models are 

manufactured in Canada and are type 

certificated for operation in the United 

States under the provisions of 14 CFR 

21.29 and the applicable bilateral 

agreement. Pursuant to the applicable 

bilateral agreement, Transport Canada 

has kept the FAA informed of the 

situation described above. The FAA has 

examined the findings of Transport 

Canada, reviewed all available 

information, and determined that AD 

action is necessary for products of these 

type designs that are certificated for 

operation in the United States. 

Interested persons have been afforded 

an opportunity to participate in the 

making of this amendment. No 

comments were received on the 

proposal or the FAA’s determination of 

the cost to the public. The FAA has 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require the adoption of 

the rule as proposed, except for a 

change in paragraph (f) of the AD to add 

additional contact information. This 

change will neither increase the 

economic burden on any operator nor 

increase the scope of the AD. 

The FAA estimates that this AD will: 

• Affect 2194 helicopters of U.S. 

registry, 

• Take about 1⁄4 work hour for a blade 

check or inspection, and 

• Take 3 work hours to replace a 

blade at an average labor rate of $65 per 

work hour. 

• Cost about $5848 per helicopter. (In 

its ASB, the manufacturer states it will 

give warranty credit based on hour 

usage on the blade with remaining life 

hours and other restrictions.) 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. 

operators to be $19,989,973. Costs 

assume—200 pilot checks, 26 mechanic 

inspections, and one blade replacement 

for 90 percent of the fleet with a 

nonconforming blade. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with RULES